As empirical research in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan has revealed, people in protracted displace- ment situations face the empirical fall-out of govern- ment policies at the societal and, in particular, the community and neighbourhood level. Thus, the rela- tionships within societies that host people in pro- tracted displacement situations and the existence of social inequalities influence the success of translocal networks as a livelihood option, especially for the lower class. According to De Haan (2017), social
114 \ Moreover, scholars take into account the range of available and newly emerging options people use to secure their livelihood as well as options that get lost or are locked up by particular actors or through certain events. For example, food aid only tends to treat the symptoms of a crisis but does not lead to sustainable livelihood conditions (cf. Buchanan-Smith, 1990) and can even block livelihood options in the long term.
115 \ In addition to the discussed lenses of livelihood options and pillars, livelihood studies further distinguish ‘livelihood sectors’ (Grawert 1998, pp. 10-15; cf. also Grawert, 1998a).
Only in 2012 did humanitarian agencies adopt the livelihood approach for displaced people and refugees (UNHCR, 2012). In this context, the original intention of development agencies to establish an approach that focusses on people’s agency has given way to a highly bureaucratic and technical approach that inevitably tends to objectify people as ‘target groups’. Accordingly, the livelihood programmes of development agencies have been criticized from a research perspective, as they are establishing “frame- works, toolboxes and flow diagrams with mechanic feedback arrows and little historical and theoretical depth” (Haan, 2017, pp. 3-4).
From an analytical perspective, the livelihood approach examines the agency of individuals and groups towards making use of available livelihood options. It includes the particular social relations, attitudes, and culture that are associated with the economic activities of a specific social group. Securing livelihood in times of emergency involves a range of activities of collectives (in some cases, possibly also of individuals) within their social environment and through social interaction with the aim of retaining (or re-gaining) the basis for resuming what the group considers as ‘their way of life’ when the emergency is over (Grawert, 1998). Power relations and social posi- tions—bounded by social class, caste, ethnic group, gender, age, among others, with varying permeability— determine to what extent different persons or groups can access and make use of livelihood options. Espe- cially in times of emergency, social groups mobilize extended relations to secure their livelihood. These relations have been termed ‘livelihood network’ and include all persons and collectives that participate in securing the livelihood of a selected group or family. People’s social interconnections or livelihood net- works are thus a crucial part of people’s agency towards livelihood security. Livelihood networks are dynamic and change through shocks and other polit- ical, economic, social or cultural influences, which often have the effect of closing options or opening new ones and curtailing or widening networks (Grawert, 1998, pp. 10-20; 153-176; Grawert, 1998a).
group of the established was more cohesive and better organized as they had been together longer than the newcomers. Their superiority evolved because of in- tensive interaction over generations, and the presence of outsiders increased social control among the established. Outsiders were denied access to common activities of the established. The group of the estab- lished enhanced cohesion by reinforcing markers of identity that were derived from characteristics of the role models of the best performers of their group. The outsiders, on the other hand, were stigmatized according to identity markers derived from their weakest performers. The established used this differ- ence to reserve social or political positions for their members, reinforcing their cohesion, while members of the outsiders were excluded. Over and above, the outsiders identified themselves with the negative characteristics allotted to their group and accepted the established as superior. However, as soon as the position of power occupied by the established eroded, counter-stigmatization started to occur. Potential consequences are conflicts and violence in the com- munity (Elias & Scotson 2013, pp. 11–27).
These findings by Elias and Scotson question the sole importance of power derived from material wealth, ethnicity, education and other resources that ostensibly explain power differences between estab- lished community members and displaced people or refugees. 116 Moreover, these insights are gained when
the dynamics in these communities are observed over a longer period, not only with regard to the arrival of IDPs, refugees or returnees but also to the long- term development of interrelations within the group of the established, their ways of creating coherence and the role the interdependency with the IDPs or refugees plays in this regard. Understanding the figu- ration between host communities and displaced per- sons as well as between communities of origin and returnees can explain why (re-)integration may fail
116 \ Methodologically, they suggest considering the descriptions by members of the established communities of the displaced or refugees, the characteristics attached to the established by the newcomers, and the self-description of each group. The research underlying this Paper followed this approach as closely as possible, albeit with limitations due to practical (security) constraints during fieldwork in Iran, Afgha- nistan and Pakistan.
exclusion as a phenomenon that stems from patterns of distribution of economic wealth can be addressed through “a layered analysis of exclusionary practices encountered by the poor when organising their liveli- hoods” (De Haan, 2017, p. 6). Beyond access to resources and opportunities, power relations and “impeding structures” (ibid.) form the layers of livelihood. Studies that analyze people’s livelihood through these layers can identify the power relations that exclude and marginalize certain social groups and thus perpetu- ate poverty (De Haan, 2017, pp. 6-9).
This relational approach builds—among many others—on an early study Elias & Scotson (2013) pub- lished in 1965, which provides insights into interde- pendencies and power relations emerging in the figu- ration between the established and outsiders. As this appears to be a crucial figuration that displaced people frequently find themselves in, and as the relational dimension has re-surfaced on the research agenda, we suggest incorporating the figuration perspective more systematically in the concept of livelihood when applied to violent conflicts and protracted dis- placement situations. A closer look into the function- ing of the established‒outsider figuration reveals how the relationships in host communities can affect livelihood options.
In their book on established and outsiders, Elias and Scotson (2013) use the term ‘figuration’ for a rather solid pattern of interrelations that tends to perpetu- ate a power imbalance, a sense of inequality, and entrenched perceptions of a community consisting of superiors and inferiors. Based on research in a small homogeneous community, they developed an empirical paradigm, which can be used to identify common structures and problems affecting much larger and differentiated societies as well as reasons for differences in functioning and how they develop according to different conditions (p. 10). The scholars’ observations revealed that power differentials emerged due to differences in internal cohesion and degree of organization within the two groups. The